Effective traction devices for cervical traction are commonly used in hospitals, physical therapy centers, and other medical facilities. However, these devices are both complicated and expensive, typically utilizing electrically controlled winch systems mounted on specially constructed beds. The systems are controlled and monitored by a health care worker. They are not well suited for home or other out-patient use and are not easily portable. Persons requiring traction but otherwise not needing hospital attention would benefit from equipment that is easy to use without assistance, inexpensive, reliable, safe, and readily portable. Such equipment combined with a doctor's instructions and periodic oversight, would allow a person requiring traction to effectively administer traction to himself at home or elsewhere much more regularly and conveniently than in-patient treatment.
While some portable and patient-operable traction devices do exist, these available devices have not been entirely satisfactory in meeting all of the above-described criteria. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,356,816 and 4,664,101 issued to Granberg disclose cervical traction devices that are operable by the patient. The first of these employs a chain and shaft mechanism within the bed of the system. The second of these devices employs a hydraulic pump mechanism to increase the tension on a cord attached to a head halter. These systems, however, may be difficult for some patients to properly set up without assistance. They can also be expensive and are large and cumbersome to carry around.
A major supplier of portable traction equipment is the Lossing Orthopedic Company of Minneapolis, Minn. The Lossing Necktrac.RTM. cervical traction device is meant to be portable for in-home use. The user of this equipment is not provided with the safety of an overload indicator or constantly visible tension readout. The user is required to pull on the cord with the full force of the desired tension to place his or her neck under the desired tension. In other words, no mechanical advantage is provided. Thus, the equipment may be quite difficult for many patients to use safely and effectively.
Other devices are also known in the prior art, however, like the devices discussed above, none of them are completely satisfactory in meeting the desired criteria. See, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,627,423; 5,052,378; 5,024,214; 4,538,598; 4,407,274; 4,674,485; 2,658,506; 4,987,886; 4,608,969; and 3,298,364.